Religious Discussion Thread

[Northern Beaches dog]

No. Of course not. And I know where you're going with this. You're going to say, "humans survived because they OUGHT to"

And I'll save you the time. No. Humans didn't survive because they "Ought" to. Humans survived because they won the evolutionary lottery. Everything we hold to be true about us is because we won the evolutionary lottery.

If humans didn't win an another species rose up and developed their own intelligence, then it would be a different world. That species wouldn't survive because it "ought" to survive. It would survive because it did.

This is the key basics of evolution. Random mutations occur. If those mutations are useful for survival (like walking on two legs, less hair, intelligence), then those mutations are more likely to stick around.

Humans didn't survive because we ought to. We didn't develop morality because we ought to. We just did, and it stuck around because it was useful.

Ok, my argument is that under naturalism, whether humans survive and flourish or they suffer and become extinct is neither right or wrong or good or evil.
Therefore if somehow a dictator wiped out the human race, nothing right or wrong happened.
Humans may not like it, may not desire it, but that does not make it wrong.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Prescriptions presume goals. If the person on the receiving end of the prescription doesn't hold the presumed goal. Its a fluff.

Again. Look at Woolfords and oconnors rebuttal to William Craigs argument from morality. And if you're truely interested. Look at the debates between them on the topic. Its too much to get into and write. But it is interesting

The argument is that under naturalism, there are no goals objectively. That is, it is not a fact that humans should survive and flourish.
Humans making rules does not make rules objective.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Ok, my argument is that under naturalism, whether humans survive and flourish or they suffer and become extinct is neither right or wrong or good or evil.
Therefore if somehow a dictator wiped out the human race, nothing right or wrong happened.
Humans may not like it, may not desire it, but that does not make it wrong.

Kind of. If a dictator wipes out half of the population then it's definitely wrong. If a dictator wipes out all of humanity then it's also wrong but there's no one around to appreciate it. It's like a tree falling in the woods. If there's nothing around to hear it fall, it'll still make a sound, but it doesn't matter because nothing heard the sound.

Humans dying is wrong for humans. Humans going extinct would be considered wrong by humans if humans were still around. But as they are not, then it's not considered wrong because there is no one left to consider it wrong. Although the more intelligent non-human creatures may consider it a good thing from a moral standpoint.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The argument is that under naturalism, there are no goals objectively. That is, it is not a fact that humans should survive and flourish.
Humans making rules does not make rules objective.

It's not. It's not a fact that humans should survive and flourish. It's just something we want to do. It's something all species want to do.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

It's not. It's not a fact that humans should survive and flourish. It's just something we want to do. It's something all species want to do.

But why is it wrong?
Says who?
If there are no FACTS, then wrong compared to what?
For example, it is an objective fact that the earth rotates around the sun.
That means even if no humans existed, it is still a fact that the earth rotates around the sun.
The earth rotating around the sun has nothing to do with humans.
If you say the sun rotates around the earth, then you are wrong only because we can compare your claim against a fact.

If there is no OM, then when you say it is wrong for a dictator to wipe out humans, what are you comparing that claim against? If there is no fact in the first place (OM), then your claim cannot be validated.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

It's not. It's not a fact that humans should survive and flourish. It's just something we want to do. It's something all species want to do.

Therefore if a dictator wiped out all of humanity, he has not done anything wrong or evil.
What humans want and desire does not make it right or wrong.
This is logic 101

 

[Dogna88]

The argument is that under naturalism, there are no goals objectively. That is, it is not a fact that humans should survive and flourish.
Humans making rules does not make rules objective.

Your argument is if OMV exist therefore God(s) exist.

Your argument is that God is the reference point for OMV. Correct?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

But why is it wrong?
Says who?
If there are no FACTS, then wrong compared to what?
For example, it is an objective fact that the earth rotates around the sun.
That means even if no humans existed, it is still a fact that the earth rotates around the sun.
The earth rotating around the sun has nothing to do with humans.
If you say the sun rotates around the earth, then you are wrong only because we can compare your claim against a fact.

If there is no OM, then when you say it is wrong for a dictator to wipe out humans, what are you comparing that claim against? If there is no fact in the first place (OM), then your claim cannot be validated.

You're still only seeing it from a God perspective. If morality is developed out of evolution and societal interest then it's still wrong. Just because it's not a God that says it's wrong, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

In fact it probably makes it even more wrong because it's humans doing it to help other humans. Not humans doing it because they fear the wrath of their creator.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Therefore if a dictator wiped out all of humanity, he has not done anything wrong or evil.
What humans want and desire does not make it right or wrong.
This is logic 101

Nope. You're still not seeing it. This is why I keep saying that this debate is pointless. You have an established belief in your head that goodness cannot exist without God. So we remove God from the equation and you believe that there is no longer good.

But that's not how it works. If you can't see the potential of morality without God after it has been explained to you hundreds of times, then this debate is pointless.

As I said in my criticism of William Lane Craig. Believing that your position is 100% without possible opposites is not philosophy. It's ideology.

 

[Dogna88]

You're still only seeing it from a God perspective. If morality is developed out of evolution and societal interest then it's still wrong. Just because it's not a God that says it's wrong, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

In fact it probably makes it even more wrong because it's humans doing it to help other humans. Not humans doing it because they fear the wrath of their creator.

Doing something good in hope for reward or fear of punishment, does not make a person good.

 

[Kelpie03]

Exactly, i am not sure what his argument is.
He says in some cases OM exists and others they do not.
I agree that some cases it is really easy to know, ie rape, torture etc but other examples it is grey.
The argument to the grey areas is, that is a question on epistemology - how we know. My argument is nothing about epistemology, rather it is about ontology.
Now, in the cases he says OM exists, i am asking how he grounds that morality, he keeps on reverting to evolution/biology, but evolution is a description. It does not tell how we OUGHT to behave. It just tells us what is.

Excuse my ignorance but who is this OM.

 

[Mr 95%]

Excuse my ignorance but who is this OM.

It’s not who Kelpie, it’s a what.. it is short for Objective Morality..the belief that morality is universal..it is ‘programmed’ within us..and for religious people, this morality code within us is from God.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Your argument is if OMV exist therefore God(s) exist.

Your argument is that God is the reference point for OMV. Correct?

Yes, correct.
Objective means facts/truths exist independent of the human mind.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Excuse my ignorance but who is this OM.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

You're still only seeing it from a God perspective. If morality is developed out of evolution and societal interest then it's still wrong. Just because it's not a God that says it's wrong, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

In fact it probably makes it even more wrong because it's humans doing it to help other humans. Not humans doing it because they fear the wrath of their creator.

How can evolution INSTRUCT us us to do anything? Evolution describes what is, not what it ought to be.
How can you not understand this?

I am not sure how else i can describe this simple concept to you.

Lets look at planetary evolution as an example.
The planet Saturn has 4 rings. This came about by planetary evolution.
Is it right or wrong that Saturn has 4 rings? That is, should it have had more or less than 4 rings?
The answer is neither, it just has 4 rings. It just is, there is no ought.
Lets say by some technology we have the ability to add another ring to it, have we done something right or wrong?
Is there a law in the universe that says you should not add or reduce the number of rings in Saturn? No.

Now lets apply planetary evolution to biological evolution.
If we evolved and developed traits that were adopted so we don't kill each other, that is no different to the number of rings that has Saturn has.
It just evolved that way.
Now in my example, if we altered the number of rings (changed what evolution gave) have we done something wrong? NO.
Now lets say we act in contrary to what biological evolution like committed a murder, have we done anything wrong?
The answer is NO.
Before you respond, READ carefully

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Nope. You're still not seeing it. This is why I keep saying that this debate is pointless. You have an established belief in your head that goodness cannot exist without God. So we remove God from the equation and you believe that there is no longer good.

But that's not how it works. If you can't see the potential of morality without God after it has been explained to you hundreds of times, then this debate is pointless.

As I said in my criticism of William Lane Craig. Believing that your position is 100% without possible opposites is not philosophy. It's ideology.

Who defines good?
Just answer this question, who? You, Hiler, Stalin, Mao? Northern Korean president? Biden?
Whose definition is more correct?
If there is no objective reference point, whose is more correct?
This is a very basic concept.

 

[Dogna88]

Yes, correct.
Objective means facts/truths exist independent of the human mind.

And you dont agree that those objective truths are universally valid under all circumstance. Ie dealing absolutes.

You agree that exist independent of the human mind, but vary according to context and circumstance.

It has an objective reference point. Like consequesialism and consequences, Harris and wellbeing etc

You are using your specific interpretation of a God for your reference point. Which is subjective in itself.

Now if you look into Williams Craigs argument for morality. He uses definition 1 in his first premise then changes to definition 2 in his second premise.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

How can evolution INSTRUCT us us to do anything? Evolution describes what is, not what it ought to be.
How can you not understand this?

I am not sure how else i can describe this simple concept to you.

Lets look at planetary evolution as an example.
The planet Saturn has 4 rings. This came about by planetary evolution.
Is it right or wrong that Saturn has 4 rings? That is, should it have had more or less than 4 rings?
The answer is neither, it just has 4 rings. It just is, there is no ought.
Lets say by some technology we have the ability to add another ring to it, have we done something right or wrong?
Is there a law in the universe that says you should not add or reduce the number of rings in Saturn? No.

Now lets apply planetary evolution to biological evolution.
If we evolved and developed traits that were adopted so we don't kill each other, that is no different to the number of rings that has Saturn has.
It just evolved that way.
Now in my example, if we altered the number of rings (changed what evolution gave) have we done something wrong? NO.
Now lets say we act in contrary to what biological evolution like committed a murder, have we done anything wrong?
The answer is NO.
Before you respond, READ carefully

I still don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I say that because you started posting exactly what I said, but then jumped to a completely different conclusion.

I have stated multiple times that evolution is not what "ought" to be. It just is. I keep saying this. We develop morality because that's how we developed. No intelligent design behind it.

You keep jumping back to the is-ought fallacy but I keep saying that there is no is-ought because there is no "ought". We did not evolve this way because we ought to be this way. We evolved this way by chance. Chance and best fit. Why did it work out for humans? Because we evolved. Because it's our system that we evolved in.

Here's a nice little analogy for you. There's an arid area. It rain occasionally, but the water doesn't hang around. Eventually the winds and animal erosion leads to holes. Over time these holes get deeper. Eventually they become basins. Now when it rains the water fills up the basins. As the water can hang around, it leads to animals drinking water from the basins. Birds and other animals bring seeds in their stomachs from other areas and they poop them out near the water basins. Over time the combination of the water and manure allows these seeds to grow. End result, we have a viable oasis from an arid land.

Do we thank God for this oasis? Of course not. It was just a natural process. A bunch of random things that worked together to end up with exactly what the area needed. This has happened quite often in nature. But we don't call it "ought to be", it just is. Just like humans.

"Now lets say we act in contrary to what biological evolution like committed a murder, have we done anything wrong?
The answer is NO"

Again, incorrect. If evolution changed and murder was no longer detrimental to our survival. If it actually increased our survival, and society had nothing against murder, would it be wrong? No. It wouldn't. Because that would be the morality of the society based on that process.

But that's not the case. We did evolve this way. And it's not just the random part. Not killing other tribe members is always going to advance the species. So it's likely any other species would evolve the same way. But maybe they wouldn't. And it doesn't matter because this is the way we evolved and this is why we have our morality. No ought about it.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Who defines good?
Just answer this question, who? You, Hiler, Stalin, Mao? Northern Korean president? Biden?
Whose definition is more correct?
If there is no objective reference point, whose is more correct?
This is a very basic concept.

Humans based on evolutionary benefit and society.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

OK. Let's take this down another path. Let's look at murder. Is that objectively immoral?